New study says:
red meat not unhealthy &
high protein diet not uniquely satiating
A new 3-month study with over a 100 participants compared eating 25 vs. 125 g of unprocessed beef daily. The researchers reported 2 interesting findings.
First, "changes in cardiometabolic risk factors were not different between groups", indicating the extra beef has no measurable adverse health effects.
Second, the extra beef protein did not reduce energy intake during their ad libitum diets. The participants could eat as much as they wanted outside of the small or large portion of beef.
Despite consuming significantly more protein, the high-beef group did not consume significantly less energy (a trend for more, in fact).
These findings contradict the popular belief that protein is inherently more satiating than other energy sources.
We conducted our own study earlier on far higher protein intakes in strength trainees. In line with protein leverage theory, we found that protein is not uniquely appetite suppressing when increasing intakes beyond daily requirements.
Overall, the researchers concluded: "Healthy diets consumed ad libitum that contain a little or a lot of unprocessed beef have similar effects on body weight, energy metabolism, and cardiovascular risk factors".
Intermittent fasting (IF) diets are worse for your blood sugar and blood pressure, new meta-analysis finds.
In yesterday's post I discussed a large-scale study showing that IF diets are no better for fat loss than other diets, given the same macronutrient intakes. Many people are aware of this now, but many people still practice IF diets for their proposed health benefits.
A new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials finds that intermittent energy restriction diets are actually not healthier than diets with constant energy restriction.
Red meat consumption does not cause cardiovascular disease,
new systematic review says
Red meat consumption is correlated with cardiovascular disease in many studies. However, people that eat more red meat on average also have a significantly worse lifestyle than people that eat less red meat.
They smoke more, they consume more sugar and they're less wealthy. So is red meat or one of these other factors the culprit? Covariate analyses are always limited by knowing the covariate and having it in your data set, among other limitations.
Many people are under the impression that keto diets are better for fat loss but worse for muscle growth than higher-carb diets.
Last week I posted a review on the ketogenic diet for concurrent athletes that concluded keto diets are actually equally effective for both fat loss and muscle growth.
Now a new meta-analysis specifically on strength trainees, both male and female, concluded that keto diets are indeed equally effective to gain muscle.
A new meta-analysis of the scientific literature sought to answer this question by looking at velocity stops.
During a set, your velocity gradually decreases until it reaches 0 in the biomechanical sticking point when you reach momentary muscle failure. The level of velocity loss can thus serve as an objective measure of how close to failure you are.
However, one problem with the use of velocity-based training is that the relationship between proximity to failure and velocity loss is highly individual and context-dependent. It differs per exercise, training intensity and individual.
New meta-analysis says 1.5 g/kg protein is enough to maximize strength development
One of my first articles was about the myth of 1 gram protein per pound of bodyweight. I argued 0.82 g/lb was more than enough to optimize our gains based on the research, in contrast to virtually every other source in fitness at the time.
This article stood the test of time extremely well. In 2017, I participated in a meta-analysis of the literature that found 1.6 g/kg/d was the break-off point of further benefits in gains.